Why are Amnesty International monitors not able to observe the Assange hearing?
amnesty.org
amnesty.org
Most people don't care because they don't pay attention. Of those that do, the noisy attention payers like us, a sizeable group have decided Assange isn't likeable and so should suffer for upsetting people more powerful than him.
Now we have to go through all this theatrics simply so those people can say things like "he got a fair hearing" and "the magistrate ruled against him so that must be the law".
It's very disappointing, because the whole point of laws is that it shouldn't matter whether you're pretty or funny or sympathetic. And after thousands of years of civilisation, people still rely on their gut feelings.
Are you sure it's not the other way round? Additionally, I don't think it matters whether they care or pay attention. Unless the media pays attention and publishes information, they won't get anywhere.
> It's very disappointing, because the whole point of laws is that it shouldn't matter whether you're pretty or funny or sympathetic.
A cynic might say that the whole point of laws is to give the impression of justice, not to provide it.
Is there one singular "point" to laws? I feel like justifying this statement inevitably ends up at some kind of secret cabal conspiracy theory. Otherwise you have to admit that there are many groups who have many competing points and goals for legal systems.
Also, naming a theory does not give it credence. So simply saying that a person said a thing and gave it a name tells me nothing if you don't tell me what they said. Linking to a hour long video is not a good substitution for defining your terms.
Makes sense anyway. The communists have a higher death toll.
Your comment is unnecessarily dismissive and only harbors guilt by association. Can you attribute support for, say, gulags to Prof. Chibber? If not, then your comment is irrelevant. If you can, you have further to prove that this opinion is a defect in this particular theory of law.
Otherwise you have to admit that there are many groups who have many competing points and goals for legal systems.
I thought it was pretty clear that "pluralist theory" was referring to that last bit so I did not feel the need to define but I guess it was not so sorry about that.
The hour long video was for the purpose of investigating further the matter rather than providing a definition.
I do understand that you are wary of scholars, I am myself. A title is not a guarantee of truth and knowledge is valuable when it is the product of good research and good method, something an academic title cannot guarantee alas.
I guess that now I should add that being a barman is how I currently sustain myself while learning to code. :)
On a high level view probably "to make it work", but that just shifts the problem to what "it" is and what "work" means.
It's easier to look for a priority, I think. When two interests clash (e.g. a fundamental interest of the state and the law), which one is given priority? Since it's the state that enforces the law, I believe the answer is obvious.
I agree it's the other way around. People trust the government (conceptually, they may or may not trust any given administration). I can't even get most of my friends worked up about the TSA. My wife is one of the most libertarian people I know IRL (to be fair, I live in DC and not SV) and she hates Assange and thinks he's a Russian puppet.
The sad part is that recently everyone seems to be ok with this, as long as it's working in their favor in whatever particular instance.
Or they feel like they can't do anything about it, because if they even try, they'll end up getting their lives either ruined or completely turned around, like Assange or Snowden.
It’s a shame really. Assange and Wikileaks has done a lot for government transparency and paid for it. Way more than the martyrs who go to rallies and complain that they’re called fake news. Who cares? Do something that gets you exiled into indefinite solitary confinement then you can have my sympathy.
In the meantime, his defenders really are motley crew. You have people from all sides, from the WWG1WGA people to amnesty internal and reporters without borders. We'll see if that's enough to pierce the walled garden of coastal and mainstream media.
Folks had been willing to overlook that, because they viewed him as sympathetic. But he’s undermined that with his connections to Russia. Moreover, Russian attempts to manipulate the 2016 election showed a lot of people that radical transparency isn’t cost free—hostile governments can use this information to jeopardize American national security, including by manipulating otherwise well meaning leakers.
If you’re neither sympathetic nor on the right side of the law, you’ve got a problem.
In addition, multiple journalists have spoken out to the effect that encouraging sources to leak is standard journalistic practice.
This is not a difficult line drawing exercise. Lawyers do it all the time: you’re protected from disclosing client confidences. But it’s highly illegal to actually assist your client in obstructing an investigation!
Whose morality, ethics, and common practice? The fact that this leaked and almost nobody cares means that people have made a decision. They want the government to have wide latitude to protect them from terrorism, and they care more about that than prosecuting this purported wrongdoing.
Most people have made the decision that the government is corrupt, Assange is an asshole, and there's nothing they can do about any of it because their elected officials are also corrupt.
That is hardly an endorsement of all the horrible things that the US government has been secretly doing in their name.
The US executed people for torture after WWII. (None of its own people, though. That is acknowledged as an unfortunate failing.)
A journalist can receive information from a thief, but if the journalist starts helping the thief cracks safes to steal more stuff, that is a whole other story.
*so Manning could steal the same amount of data with a bit more secrecy. The account in question was a generic Windows account that only had access to thing Manning had clearance for.
Please note that I'm not saying Assange deserves to be prosecuted for any of this by the US government. Saying he stepped over the line (or may have stepped, since he's not proven guilty) is only step 1.
The next step to ask is "is that a crime?" Yes, in the US it is.
But then comes the next question: "Was Assange subject to US law when he did this?" That is much less clear. I don't know where he was physically located when he was involved with this, or international law to know where jurisdictional issues land on this. Personally, I don't think he should be subject to US when he's not a US citizen and wasn't located in the US when he did this. I don't like the idea that countries could prosecute someone for doing something illegal when what they did was legal in their location. To take a simple example, within, within the US that would be like saying that Utah could charge & extradite someone who smoked weed in Colorado, where it's legal, to Utah, where it is not legal.
And more questions after this too, like "Did crossing the line actually provide significant material aid?" In this, I don't think it did.
I can understand your point, but Assange never provided assistance that allowed Manning to break into more things. The assistance provided, if successful, would only let Manning access the data she already had access to, just not leave a log saying she was the one who accessed it.
To use a physical analogy, Manning already had access to a file cabinet and was committed to leaking every document inside, and Assange gave her a pair of gloves to hide her fingerprints. His actions in no way enabled her act, but was an attempt to prevent retaliation.
Sometimes, the law is wrong, and should be broken. Nonviolent disobedience of the law is a moral obligation in many instances. There is a long and glorious history of this happening throughout modern history.
This is why we have juries: to make that instance not illegal.
According to the indictment, Assange was running a whole operation where he was recruiting hackers to get sensitive data from protected computer systems. You’re positing that we should basically have vigilante hackers that expropriate and publish confidential data so long as they purport to be acting in the public interest. That’s an intriguing idea. Maybe that should be the law. But that definitely isn’t the law now. (And when it comes to a jury—we are still in the extradition stage, so the jury will come later—I suspect they won’t agree either.)
This is an accusation, and is not fact. You'd be wise not to treat it as such until it's proven.
The main issue with the course that you seem to suggest is that by the time he might obtain a jury trial in the US, he will already be subject to US imprisonment, and thus, torture (which is precisely what happened to Manning). Countries that purport to be free (such as the UK) should prevent extradition to countries that torture suspects prior to trial, such as the US.
Sure. But extradition hearings necessarily operate on allegations because they come before a jury trial that will determine the facts.
That's not what they said at all. That's just a straw-man you created. What they said is that Juries are the law, they're part of the English tradition because a Jury is the law.
In regards to Chelsea Manning, that bit is quite short:
"In addition, the broadened hacking conspiracy continues to allege that Assange conspired with Army Intelligence Analyst Chelsea Manning to crack a password hash to a classified U.S. Department of Defense computer. "
Forbes spent some time on this[1] and they believe that this really is the important part, this is the act that elevates Assange's actions to conspiracy. According to Forbes no password was ever derived from the hash and it never led to the collection of any documents.
[0]: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wikileaks-founder-charged-sup...
[1]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2019/04/16/unpac...
Assange is alleged to have actively recruited hackers and directed them to find particular information from particular sources. Among other things, agreed to assist Manning in deriving a password from a hash file. (It is irrelevant whether he succeeded or not—the crime of conspiracy is complete upon taking the first substantial step toward achieving the goal of the conspiracy, such as passing the hash to someone else for cracking.)
According to the indictment, he was closer to running an operation to expropriate sensitive data from all over the world than being a journalist neutrally publishing documents that people sent him.
To me, that seems very different then what I normally think of as investigative journalism.
In my opinion I'm not sure how much or how heavy a book should be thrown at someone trying to decode a hashed password, but that's not really what is at issue. Perhaps the issue is, "is this a crime in the UK".
Secondly > It is irrelevant whether he succeeded or not...
I mean, that is sort of the complaint. He annoyed powerful people doing something that isn't a crime (the leaking) and then they're combing through hitting him with random charges that nobody cares about. We haven't been watching an 8 year circus because of a failed password crack. None of the response is proportionate to that bullshit crime. They've made everything around leaking illegal so they have fig-leaf excuses to prosecute whistleblowers and journalists.
Furthermore, the security apparatus could probably just make something up if there were no crimes. They've lied to everyone else, why not the UK justice system?
Manning is the one who passed the hash, not Assange. If it even is a hash, Manning is unsure. Assange never agreed to crack the password. There is no evidence Assange communicated the alleged hash to anyone else let alone attempted to crack it. A couple of days later Assange asks manning about it again, and there's no response. Assange never inquires about how Manning got this 16 byte value, nor does he offer any instructions on how to extract password hashes.
If this had been a chat log from a legal pentest that was being conducted by Manning then nobody would claim that Assange helped or contributed to it in any way. If there was an actual conspiracy going on here the logs would look much different.
The rest of the allegations basically claim that putting out a general call for people in possession of state secrets leak them is conspiracy ipso facto, as is taking any step to follow up with anyone who is interested in leaking, or taking any step to prevent a source from getting caught. It's ridiculous.
Is there some additional evidence in support of the allegation that Assange conspired to crack a password that I've missed?
What? Was handed over by who? Manning gave it to Assange, we have no evidence to suggest Assange did anything with it. By this logic you might as well argue that Assange was actively conspiring because he provided an SFTP server for Manning to upload stuff to.
Think of it this way: You're sitting at a bar and I'm selling you drinks. You're drinking and talking about how you want to steal some cars. You ask me, "Do you know much about defeating car locks?"
I say, truthfully, "Sure, I have a huge collection of dealer keys"
Then you pull out a picture of a Telsa, show me, and say "I want to steal one of these!"
And so I say, "Right, well I'll ask a friend about that. How about another drink?"
Then a couple of days later you come to the bar and I ask you, "Have you stolen a Tesla yet? No luck with my friend". You don't reply and we never speak of it again.
Did I actually help you try to steal the Tesla? Did I conspire with you to do it? Did I take any active steps to help you? I don't think so. If you disagree I'm curious why you think I'm wrong, either in this analogy or in what the chat logs actually say.
I guess theoretically he might have been blowing smoke, but that doesn't matter: he said that he had done something with it. If he was lying, it's very unfortunate, because the lie claimed he committed a crime.
A server to send data to doesn't help Manning steal the data. She had to steal the data before she could leak it.
Don't go reading into what you think my logic is in the broader issue. I'm talking about the very narrow question of whether Assange crossed over from receiving data into trying to provide the ability to steal more of it. My opinion on this case as a whole is not at all reflected by analyzing my stance on that one specific legal question.
If "I'll ask a guy" is all that's required to make something into a conspiracy that is incredibly, mindblowingly flimsy.
Our misdeeds are far more troubling than his.
The difference here we're talking about is minuscule, and this is clearly just some technicality BS the highly paid US lawyers have come up with.
If your citizens are so easily swayed by Russian manipulation that you have to make it such a big deal, your 'democracy' has a bigger (fragility) problem.
If you are OK with MNCs swaying votes with money but not with nations doing the same, your 'democracy' has double-standards and has a bigger (integrity) problem.
You can 'law' all you want. Laws are written by people, who are sometimes just and sometimes not just. Laws are not all universal; they get changed all the time; different countries have different laws. Some laws are right and some are wrong.
You say that as though propaganda was not a real thing with a proven track record. Blaming the victim.
1 out of the 18+ charges brought against him are for that. It's also a minor crime that would carry a 5 year penalty, which is hardly worth all this effort. The other 170 years of charges related to violations of the espionage act, and it's not at all clear that they would even apply to Assange who is not a U.S. citizen or military contractor.
> because they viewed him as sympathetic.
I've never viewed him as sympathetic. It takes a completely unrestrained ego to try to be the "public front-man" for Wikileaks. On the other hand, what's happening to him now is a clear abuse of the law and extradition process. Add to that the years of mistreatment he's been through, and I find it very easy to see him in a sympathetic light.
> But he’s undermined that with his connections to Russia.
How so? Did he actively seek out Russian documents so he could release them?
> hostile governments can use this information to jeopardize American national security
This misses the obvious. Hostile foreign governments _already_ had this information. How or why they were using it before is beyond us. Releasing it does serve their interests, but it's no longer possible for them to monopolize it either. The only difference is, after it was released, we all had it.
> If you’re neither sympathetic nor on the right side of the law, you’ve got a problem.
Yes, but that's _precisely_ the reason we invented courts in the first place, to ensure that even in these ambiguous circumstances that justice can be seen to. It's troubling that you see this as the exact reason he won't receive justice at all... and again, it's what makes it so easy for me to view him sympathetically again.
Julian Assange hosted a show on RT, he was literally on the payroll of the Russian government. Also suspicious is that Wikileaks basically has only leaked documents that look bad for western democracy. There’s one leak of critical of Russia, but it has basically nothing of substance in it. When you claim to be for radical transparency and work for the country that regularly has reporters murdered, it strains belief.
Assange made a show and sold broadcast rights to RT. Small but distinct difference in that he was never under pressure to follow what Russia wanted, they just wanted to broadcast his point of biew.
>There’s one leak of critical of Russia, but it has basically nothing of substance in it.
Why would anyone with information damaging to Russia choose to leak data to a primarily English organization, with no Russian speaking employees, and mainly Western readers?
This is not actually true for whistleblowing. Manning’s conviction was an illegal conviction given that the exfiltrated evidence unequivocally shows criminal murder, among other crimes, on behalf of the United States.
It is not theft or illegal access or possession if it is indeed whistleblowing. You’d have to prove that the criminal murder was not in fact criminal before any action taken to exfiltrate it can be considered a crime.
On top of all this, there is no evidence that Assange illegally exfiltrated it. It is illegal for charges to be brought based on the available evidence.
Of course, the fact the charges are illegal or that the conviction was illegal in Manning’s case unfortunately doesn’t matter in the United States where political actors will go unpunished for perpetrating such crimes.
As a non American, I always found this Russian manipulation stuff funny. America has no problem manipulating elections in other countries, overthrowing elected leaders with political coups and even assassinating foreign politicians within the borders of other nations, but Russia posting facebook ads to sway the people dumb enough to be swayed by them is oh so terrible.
Yeah, but the targets always have a problem with it, except for the entities in the target nation that are in league with the Americans.
So it's not so surprising that Americans have a problem when the roles are reversed, except the ones in league with the attacker.
Remember in every country which does things you don't like, there are people who feel as you do. In this case those people are getting the shit end of the stick.
If there was evidence they wouldn't have fabricated it. You should be ashamed of being an apologist for tyranny.
This means that the countries involved (in this case, in order: Australia, Sweden, the UK, and the US) don't have the rule of law. It means that the law is theater, always potentially subordinate to dictatorial control should it ever be exercised to overrule it.
It's okay to say it, despite it feeling silly. Identifying one of the problems allows us to address it.
These countries only pretend to have the rule of law, insofar as the law doesn't contradict what the dictatorial authority wants to happen.
It's weird to think of the US or UK or Sweden or Australia, supposedly "free countries", as top-down military dictatorships, because it goes against every fiber of branding they've spent billions to explicitly promote.
There's lots of evidence for it, however: what mainstream party in the US wants to reign in the US military's insane overfunding, or illegal US military bulk surveillance, for example?
Once you see it, it's hard to unsee.
These countries place state security far above almost every other value, including equal protection of the law. Any attempts to change this priority by those with any semblance of power will be frustrated, by force if necessary.
If you can't point to such examples, your point comes off as trivially weak.
Don’t comment pre-caffeine, kids.
to refute this charade of a trial is also to resist this misdirection.
Sure, but this is how things have always been. Rosa Parks wasn't the first or only black person that was arrested for not giving up her bus seat.
Or they decided that Assange and WikiLeaks are malicious actors not worth siding with.
The powers that be are right to throw Assange in prison.
If the government could actually prevent publishing of anything it classified, the US would still be fighting the Vietnam war and we would all consider Nixon to be a stand up guy who fairly won re-election...
This is a theme that Bridge of Spies carries off pretty well.
The US is claiming that the reason the statute of limitations doesn't apply is "terrorism".
I'm not sure Assange meets any reasonable criteria of being a terrorist.
Secondly, the charge stems from a few lines of instant message conversations. Specifically, Manning said to Assange that she was unable to crack a password hash. Assange said he had rainbow tables that could be used. Manning sent Assange a password hash.
A couple of days later, Assange stated he had "no luck so far" with the hash. There is no other evidence Assange even attempted to crack the hash and definitely no evidence that it was successful or that it harmed the US in any way.
That's basically the entire case.
One other point: the case will be tried in East Virginia, which is home to the densest population of jurors that happen to work/ have worked in national security in the nation. This is intentional, of course and it's the same reason Snowden is also unwilling to return to a US trial - the jury is known to have strong pro-government views, strong ties to the national security apparatus.
EDIT: The bigger concern is that there are only four spots for the public to view the case and all of the online access was cut, so almost no public observers are allowed in. This is concerning given the broad implications of the trial and the fact that there is obviously enormous political pressure being brought to bear.
> The US is claiming that the reason the statute of limitations doesn't apply is "terrorism".
The US AG is currently classifying 3 cities where protests are occurring as 'anarchist jurisdictions' so it's a fair bet that the truth of words hold no water to this administration.
Very limited what they reported on to be sure. AP News has more in depth reporting: https://apnews.com/hub/julian-assange
Any editorial independence they have now is purely nominal.
Makes me wonder about Mccain and the CDA.
As opposed to RT ?
https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/guides/the-sub-judice-...
> Matters are considered to be sub judice (Latin for 'under judgment') once legal proceedings become active.
> Criminal proceedings are deemed active once a person is arrested, a warrant for arrest has been issued, a summons has been issued or a person has been charged and remain active until conviction. Civil proceedings become active, in England, when the hearing date for the trial is arranged and, in Scotland, when the parties' pleadings have been finalised and the record is closed.
> Publication of material which is sub judice comprises contempt of court, a crime which is punishable by a fine of unlimited amount and/or imprisonment for up to two years. Third party costs orders may also be awarded against the media organisation, enabling the courts to recover the costs of any trial aborted as a result of the prejudicial reporting.
Zero articles in the past two weeks. If you've been following the case at all, there's been a Hell of a lot to report, from Amnesty and EU ministers despairing at having their monitor access revoked at the last minute, to Khaled El Masri's absolutely jaw-dropping testimony [1].
They have a front page post right now about "concern" over a "fan invasion" of the pitch in a GAA game (Gaelic Athletics Association). And another about some celeb confirmed to be on the next "Dancing with the Stars".
If anyone reading this is the type to blame people for being uninformed, please take this into account.
[1] https://shadowproof.com/2020/09/18/khaled-el-masri-stands-up...
I'm not sure I see the AP as having more "in depth" reporting, it just has a greater quantity of rolling reporting. Stories like "court case pauses for Covid alarm", "court case resumes", "Assange told to stop interrupting witnesses", "lawyer says Assange could be in prison for a long time" are not, let's be honest, adding to the total sum of understanding around the topic.
Simply not true, look at the coverage for the Johnny Depp libel trial on the BBC site, dozens of articles following the case day-by-day. The fact is they have become a celebrity news channel and don't want to rock the boat.
Are the legal and practical issues on a civil trial like that really identical to a criminal trial or criminal extradition?
From a logical perspective it seems quite odd, but from a pattern recognition perspective it seems quite normal, the pattern being that certain types of news stories seem to get a full court/spectrum press, and other stories (often arguably more substantial) get what seems like the bare minimum required to not raise eyebrows. It sometimes makes one wonder if there might be more going on here than meets the eye.
Why does it seem odd? Go watch/read news from a variety of sources. You'll notice that "news" is quite different from country to country and region to region. The same goes for history. The BBC is a government funded state propaganda machine. They cover and then spin whatever benefits the state. Easily the best in the world with reach in almost every one of their former slave colonies which constitute the british empire/commonwealth today.
Like all organisations, BBC editors have to decide where to focus their limited resources. They have covered Assange, lots. Yesterday they put a hell of a lot of coverage into the HSBC etc leaks, this morning the lead story on the website was the 'Tory donor Lubov Chernukhin linked to $8m Putin ally funding' story [0]
The BBC has been criticised for left wing bias in newsnight (indepth news program on about 2240), in the editor really digging into the current government [1], in the presenter really digging into the PM's chief advisor. The BBC's new chief used to be a local Tory Party deputy chairman [3], and the head of Radio used to be an elected Labour party minister, and was set for the top job at one point [4]
15 years ago the BBC DG resigned after the whole David Kelly affair put the corporation at loggerheads with the government [5]
Saying the BBC is biassed, one way or another, is a simplistic and wrong view. Saying it's not biassed is equally simplistic and wrong.
[0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54228079 [1] https://www.theweek.co.uk/107867/bbc-newsnight-editor-lewis-... [2] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/emily-maitlis... [3] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jun/05/bbc-appoints-i... [4] https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-plot-to-stop-james-p... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly_(weapons_expert)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_Un...
But you probably knew this already.
> and it regularly, in fact constantly, reports things that do not benefit the government
And? I said it was government funded "state propaganda". Government != state. Also, the best propaganda superficially "reports" on government to create an illusion of impartiality. It great a duping the dumb masses.
Who taught me that?
Julian Assange.
Assange is being charged under the US 1917 Espionage Act.
How can the US reasonably charge him with espionage? Has Assange ever even been to the US?
If we can charge a foreign reporter with espionage for the mere publication of something we consider secret, and force their international extradition, how would we feel about a foreign government doing the same to one of our citizens?
For instance, if Australia were to coerce the UK to arrest and extradite the publisher of the New York Times for prosecution under their laws for printing a story they didn't like for some reason.
Those privileges don't protect you from actively assisting in a cover-up or concealment of evidence of a crime, which is itself a crime. A lawyer doesn't have to tell a prosecutor where to find relevant evidence, but he can't help his client hide that evidence in the first place.
Whistleblowing isn’t stealing or the illegal revelation of secrets. You have to actually prove it’s not whistleblowing for it to be possible to consider it theft.
That’s why the US government rushed to add last minute new indictments against Assange for violating the Espionage Act by putting US interests in harm’s way - they knew their case in terms of possession, theft or publishing was complete b.s.
He’s not being charged with espionage for “the mere publication” of secrets. He’s being charged with actively assisting a leaker in bypassing security systems: illegal conduct that took place in the US.
The attempt to gussy this up overlooks how Assange, if he did what he’s accused of doing, clearly crossed the line. The rules in the US are already very liberal here. If you’re really just publishing materials you got from a leaker, you’re protected. Going even further and saying someone should be protected even when they actively assist a leaker in obtaining materials illegally is a huge step further.
My understanding is that they (the US government) have actually argued the opposite during the hearings.
All these documents turned out to reveal war crimes. The state shouldn't be able to hide behind these flimsy secrecy claims when they are murdering people.
Assange was doing far more than giving a few tips and encouragement.
The indictment isn't clear whether he succeeded or not. But if you look at the March 10th communication, it's clear that Assange tried to crack the hash. If so, that constitutes an illegal conspiracy.
Say your friend asks you to pick a lock so he can rob someone's house. You try to pick the lock and fail. Even though you haven't robbed the house yet, you're both guilty of conspiracy to rob the house. The attempted lock-picking is an "overt act" that completes the conspiracy: https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/inchoate-crimes/con...
> Finally, in most states, conspiracy requires an “overt act” taken in furtherance of the crime. This overt act does not have to be the crime itself, nor does it have to be an act that is illegal. Rather, the act must merely be a step taken in furtherance of the criminal objective, such as buying a weapon or holding a meeting to plan an attack. The act must also take place after the group of individuals has agreed to conspire.
If true, it would be more like this:
A friend sees that an illegal act is committed inside a house and asks you to pick the lock in order to go in and stop it.
If you looks at the logs, that is just not what happened. I see various discussions of it that sort of make up a story that isn't there. The actual chat is like this:
Bob> How big is that upload?
Alice> 440MB
Alice> It's a lot of scanned documents
Alice> How's your finances these days?
Alice> Hey are you any good at lock picking?
Bob> Yes [unclear if yes, scanned documents would account for that size, or yes, I'm good at lock picking, or something else]
Bob> Our finances are doing okay, but have trouble with some payments
Bob> We have extensive lock picking knowledge
Alice> [Sends photo of something, not clear what]
Alice> I think this is a lock, but I'm not sure. I pointed the camera at the door and took that photo.
Bob> What makes you think that's a lock?
Bob> Is it attached to a door?
Alice> Yeah
Bob> Sent the photo to someone who knows about locks
Alice> Thanks
[2 days later]
Bob> Any more hints about this picture you sent me?
Bob> No luck so far [not clear if luck with talking to the lock expert, or if the expert couldn't recognize this as a lock, or if tried to crack it... or if didn't send it anywhere at all and just mentioning it because he wants Alice to think he's helping her so that she keeps telling him what's going on]
In my view this is not even close to an overt act and that we can be sure of that given the context of all the other stuff they chat about. I'd expect some discussion of progress and technical details.
[PS. I think this is the third comment of yours I've replied to in this discussion. I don't mean to stalk you. Your points are well articulated even though I disagree with them]
I'd draw your attention to paragraph 4-6, where Assange recruited hackers to collect a "most wanted" list of confidential material and explained how he had exploited a vulnerability in the Congressional Research Service to get copies of draft reports. Also paragraphs 19-22, where communications between Assange and Manning indicate that Assange was trying to help Manning log into the system with a different login than her own, by getting a password from a hash. Whether or not he actually succeeded, if he actually attempted to crack the password, that would be an illegal conspiracy. (Conspiracy doesn't require being successful--it's enough to take the first step towards an illegal goal, in this case logging into the DOD network using someone else's account.)
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/sep/22/katharine-gun-w...
Gun was a GCHQ agent (a UK citizen that agreed to the restrictions that come with being a government intelligence analyst) that leaked evidence of the US plan to rig the UN vote around the Iraq War. She got off because the crown declined to prosecute because her defense strategy was one of necessity, showing that the government knew what they were doing was illegal and that it would imminently result in the deaths of innocents.
"Some of the information that would have been revealed at her trial, in particular Lord Goldsmith’s “conflicting arguments” as to the legality of the invasion, did not fully emerge until the publication of the report of the Chilcot inquiry in 2016. In its absence, Tony Blair won another election in 2005. Gun is grimly amused to see his current return to the moral high ground over Brexit."
In Mr. Assange's case, he is neither a US citizen nor a sworn intelligence analyst. He did in fact reveal crimes that horrified the world. They are trying to get him for running some code on a computer to see what the criminals were saying. Those people were knocking over countries and killing innocent people (something that he was able to show live in the helicopter gunship video).
The US standard for this case compared to Kat Gun is mind blowingly authoritarian and criminalizes effective dissent.
It seems just as likely to me that Assange was advocating for hackers to spend some of their time looking for documents he feels are in the public interest. I'm just speculating here, but isn't it likely that the congressional records system was not hacked but rather documents posted on it were simply difficult to find, and that if Assange could convince hackers to spend their time researching this then more information could be reported to the public?
Given how badly the prosecution has outright lied and also twisted facts to fit its narrative in this case, and how it has abused process and procedure, why should we give it any benefit of the doubt? Who says this indictment is based on evidence? It's not as if the prosecutor is going to be punished at all when he turns out to be lying.
Also, when reading paragraphs 19-22, it really looks to me that the supposedly criminal acts performed by Assange (attempted cracking of a password hash) was to protect the anonymity of the source - and that impression comes from the text of the indictment itself "Such a measure would have made it more difficult for investigators to identify Manning as the source of unauthorized disclosures of classified information."
There is a comical piece within the indictment that HN readers will enjoy:
"Manning did not have-administrative-level privileges, and used special software, namely a Linux operating system, to access the computer file"
http://johnpilger.com has lots of detailed information about all the proceedings and the complete lack of any semblance of a fair hearing in the UK.
He's charged with attempting to assist his source hide her identity while acquiring files she already had access too. While he was allegedly doing this, neither individual was in the US. Assange was in Europe while Manning was in Iraq on March 8th, the date the conversation took place.
He exposed criminal actions that the U.S. was doing. He did so by using a source that had fully legal means of obtaining that evidence.
>The rules in the US are already very liberal here.
Why is Snowden in Russia then? Why is it that those people who are actually experienced with the US government, choose other countries rather than the protection of whistle-blower laws? Perhaps it's because the people who run our country don't actually abide by any laws and are instead just criminals?
It seems clear that the release of the material was endorsed by Russia, whether they knew about it or not. Trump is not demanding his return. And Russia is not going to send him back because it would show a bad example for anybody else contemplating "doing a Snowden".
The justice system has existed from before Napoleon and it still seems it’s the fourth wheel of the shopping cart. Its role is to fix things in society by sanctioning malevolent people a posteriori, to prevent them from acting further and discourage candidates to malevolence, and determine where is the line in cases where there is no winner. So when is the last time our justice system fixed anything in our society, and why have we stopped innovating in terms of democratic advances?
The way I see it, as a largely uneducated-about-the-formalities-of-law citizen, is that this exemplifies the need for a world court who has proper interests and jurisdiction to hold fair trials for international matters.
Maybe when China pulls a US citizen out of an embassy something will happen, although I suspect not.
This would be like is Australia asked the UK to extradite someone who recruited Australians to rob a bank and then materially helped said Australians actually rob the aforementioned bank.
‘Country’ is an informal term. ‘Nation state’ is weirdly specific and doesn’t even apply!
What would you use to refer to UK then? Because if Scotland is a country, and Scotland is a part of UK, that feels kinda weird to call an entity composed of multiple countries a country.
Does the 'United...' part of their names not give it away?
Call them 'sovereign states' if you want to mean something independent on a global scale.
I should've said sovereign state. Let's not get caught up in semantics.
I don't think that the phrase "sovereign states don't have rights" is even controversial at all. I also think think that any adult that has gone through any decent education will probably be familiar with the phrase or concept, even if they can't ELI5 it, the same way we are familiar with or have heard of other related concepts like democracy, separation of powers, habeas corpus, human rights, individual rights, sovereignty, etc. In fact, sovereignty is perhaps where the debate should live because sovereignty is, after all, the right of a "state" over itself, which seems to contradict the idea that sovereign states have no rights (it doesn't). Anyway, enough of that.
My first comment was short because it was simply intended as a nudge or reminder that hey, before we go down the road of overthinking why the USA has a right to hold some secrets, let's just remember that the idea itself is difficult to defend, especially in a democracy.
That is pretty much irrelevant. You can easily break a law of a country without ever going there e.g. paying an assassin, selling weapons/drugs, stealing credit card information, breaking into a server to steal sensitive information, etc.
I mean, congratulations to the US negotiators but the UK 100% should not have agreed to it.
> “ Amnesty International had requested access to the court for a trial monitor to observe the hearings, but the court denied us a designated seat in court. Our monitor initially did get permission to access the technology to monitor remotely, but the morning the hearing started he received an email informing us that the Judge had revoked Amnesty International’s remote access.”
They requested they get special status as "fair trial monitors". The judge said they get treated like everyone else.
They should have no better access than you or I. They are nobody - a group that got together to push their agenda. They have no standing in court different from any other member of the public.
They can monitor the trial without some special recognition.
No, their remote access request was denied. This is separate from any request for standing as an expert trial observer (which is a whole other can of worms).
My understanding is that observers would need to have either one of the four available seats in the public gallery or a seat in the "overflow" rooms next to the court. Please note that the audio in the overflow room is reportedly very poor, what little I've read made it sound unreliable.
If some observers were allowed remote access, I think that is important.
"If Amnesty International and other observers wanted to attend the hearing, they would have to queue for one of the four seats available in a public gallery."
I believe the gallery seats 40 but only four are available because of their rules on social distancing.
"Magistrate Baraitser then made a statement about access to the court by remote hearing, by which she meant online. She stated that a number of access details had been sent out by mistake by the court without her agreement. She had therefore revoked their access permissions."
When I read this, I thought that only certain people had their remove access revoked, for instance Amnesty International. But then he goes on...
"Baraitser went on to say that it was important that the hearing was public, but she should only agree remote access where it was 'in the interests of justice', and having considered it she had decided it was not. She explained this by stating that the public could normally observe from within the courtroom, where she could control their behaviour. But if they had remote access, she could not control their behaviour and this was not in the 'interests of justice'."
That sounds to me like _everyone's_ remote access had been revoked.
[0]: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-...
For example, taking photographs in court, or in this case taking screenshots of court remotely.
> why is remote access still possible for other trials?
It's done on a case by case basis by the judge(s) involved in the case. It's not an automatic right.
It seems you only read the parts about physical access, and the point about space limitation might be valid in that case. But that part is merely a footnote. The real issue is the remote access being revoked.
This is truly alarming, to a much bigger scale, in this case.
And on a more local level, it's about which side the UK will pick. They can side with justice and hold onto Assange (or grant him asylum), defying their next best friend the US (after they pissed off and flounced out of Europe), or siding with international justice and hold onto him as a key witness for the (hopefully upcoming) war crimes case in the international court of justice.
Amnesty International is just an NGO. They get a lot of press but they have no standing in law, "whether the US committed war crimes" or not.
Which other NGOs should be empowered to have legal standings in other people's court cases? Which others should the government be forced to listen to?
seems like a disaster of an idea.
> whether the general public should have greater access.
Not that AI should have special legal standing.
AI is requesting access as trial monitors, special or not. Something they are entitled to under law and the principles of a open justice system because access is something everyone is entitled to.
To dismiss this as arguing for "special status" is to make the argument that you aren't allowed to argue for your own rights unless you also spend the time, energy, and money to argue for everyone else's. For example that an author couldn't sue the government for blocking the publishing of their book unless they also sued the government for blocking the publishing of every other blocked authors book. Not only is that not a duty they have, it's not even clear that they would have standing to do so.
Saying anything like “oh Amnesty International is just some NGO to be treated same as the general public so who cares” is completely unrealistic and just fails to be relevant in any way.
You don't see a problem when a legal hearing that's been criticised as "undermining of due process and the rule of law" by the International Bar Association only offers a tiny number of hard-to-get seats to the public and then asks Amnesty International to compete with them on a first-come, first-serve basis?
From the Amnesty tweet thread: "The general public has a right to the few seats in the public gallery; trial monitors should not be competing with the public to secure a seat that belongs to the public-at-large." - https://twitter.com/JuliaHall18/status/1306198935816613889
> Amnesty International has no standing in the law above that of the general public
I found this in one of their documents:
"Amnesty International and other human rights organizations have for many years sent observers to significant political trials. The acceptance of international trial observers (whether sent by foreign governments or by non-governmental organizations) has arguably become an international legal norm. The practice is well established and accepted within the international community." - https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/156000/pol3000219...
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/category/uncategoriz...
It seems to be incredibly murky and quite frankly, pretty disturbing...
Rationalwiki has its own biases but gives helpful context and evidence illustrating Murray's crankery.
- claims the perpetrators of the Salisbury poisoning aren't the Russians
- has been in disputes with a British newspaper editor and an Uzbek businessman over blog posts or articles
- some vague accusations that he may hold antisemitic views
Is that it, or is there something else?
I understand that he is biased, as both an open supporter of the accused and also because of what happened when he was ambassador to Uzbekistan, which definitely explains his interest in this particular case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Murray#Ambassador_to_Uzb...
None of the above makes me think that I shouldn't take what Murray writes about this particular court proceeding seriously.
Is there some argument that I'm missing here, some reason that can be described without relying on mere name calling and innuendo, that suggests that Murray is lying about what's going on here and I should therefore just ignore him?
He veered off into that Salisbury thing and I agree with him about the quality and some of the stretches made in the BBC output but not his conclusions. Other things are too off piste for me too...
However that does not mean to say his observations are void. I believe he is writing the facts as he sees them (and not fiction), of course there is opinion mixed in...
At this time he seems to be one of the few people allowed in the public gallery.
The UK government is basically a puppet state of the US, although they still have the pretense of independence, and they are at least paying lip service to the rule of law.
That's all his treatment is, though.
And generally, historians might want to have multiple witness accounts of what happened.
The EU has not shown a particular interest all that time. The EU is a trade-bloc, the rest is posturing.
Why would they care? Did you forget about the whole thing where they forced the President of Bolivia to land on command of the US because the US had (allegedly by Assange) been lead to believe that Snowden was on board? The EU isn't any further from the US' reach than the UK. It's a larger province in the empire, but it's still a loyal province.
There are a lot of things going on in that courtroom that should alarm journalists everywhere (especially American journalists), but without a strong voice to raise them out of their stupor, no journalist will pay enough attention to understand the new danger they face.
Strongly disagree on this point.
I've been reading Craig's reporting, because it's the best that is available as a result of the court, but it being from a less than credible source makes it significantly less valuable.
When reading I never know to what extent he is cherry picking the facts he chooses to report based on his obvious and pre-existing bias. This isn't necessarily even intentional on Craig's part, it's just a fact that people notice things that confirm their existing world view more than things that challenge it.
When reading I have to make a conscious effort to separate the factual matters reported on, from Craig's personal opinion of the situation. The strength of Craig's conviction his world views means his writing has a lower signal to noise ratio than is typical. Moreover the extreme point of view that is likely wrong (as evidenced by him believing "strange conspiracy theories" that I do not) means that the noise doesn't tend to cancel out, but is instead systematically biased.
Craig is almost certainly better than nothing (at least if you're going in eyes wide open about the kind of writing you are reading), but far from ideal.
This isn't true. The number of press there is incredibly limited, Murray estimated about ten journalists total. Exberliner is another source covering it that I've found, though not as thorough as Murray.
The fact that this hearing looks crooked as all hell is concerning to me and will inform my politics to some extent.
End of rant. Have a good day.
I'm not seeing that in the comments (and there aren't that many at present). Most people seem critical of this and/or express cynicism about the process.
WRT not supporting what Assange did, I didn't notice anyone (as I type) saying anything specific about it, negative or otherwise.
Those comments are getting really tiring and it's disappointing to see this place accept ad hominems against the source over and over in those threads instead of actually discussing the trial.
Ofc complaining about comment quality isn't new, that's existed before I started coming here.
Hn does a pretty good job of being off topic in threads but it's the nastiness of the comments that degrades the quality of conversation (I myself am guilty of this too, and I need to work on that).
Either the disinformation campaign has been spectacularly successful, a lot of HN commenters are truly daft enough to let alleged cat hygiene decide their opinion on a person's fate, or there is really some deliberate misinformation going on specifically in these threads. Maybe a combination of the three.
Regardless, it disheartens me greatly to see the state power of the US used like this. Truly removes the veil of supposedly unailenable democratic rights.
I'm seeing it everytime someone prefaces their comment with something along the lines of:
"I'm not an Assange supporter But ..."
in fact you're comment is really no different:
> not supporting what Assange did, I didn't
Are people worried the FBI will break down their door, if they don't put up the disclaimer?
Disclaimer: superficial layman's take on matters.
The only people that the government has historically been able to prosecute are government employees who leak documents, but publishers have been inviolate. That's why the prosecution of Assange is such a big deal: the US government is trying to establish a precedent that it can go after publishers, not just leakers.
Stating things are facts don't make them facts; thats an objective fact.
Anyway, I used to read Assange when he was more of a crypto/phreak, and he is, for lack of a better term, a bit of a fucking asshole. That said though, and I'm going to make a controversial statement here, but one I think is truthful, but the biggest problem now with the Assange case is the Russia-gate propaganda added him to the list, so now a large swath of people who would normally support him now still off the cuff beleive he "helped Trump" by "working with the Russians" (or some variation thereof), and because the Russiagate narrative is now so entrenched in the left, it causes a huge cognitive dissonance where they are more likely to choose the mob/tribe over principle. It's worth noting that this can also be considered a survival technique in this cancel culture world, so I try not to judge too harshly, it just gets tiring hearing the disinfo about Assange repeated ad nauseum.
It's obvious that the RussiaGate campaign is really a smear campaign used to take down enemies left and right if you pay close attention, e.g. used against Bernie Sanders who is obviously not a Russian shill, but I wish someone would put together a sourced timeline detailing the nature of the campaign, as I've got so many smart friends who fell for it and can't be convinced otherwise in a two minute discussion over cocktails.
I have often found creating just basic timelines (just org files with dates as headings) has really helped me understand and find novel insights into issues of a convtroversial nature, so I think you are on to something.
This will generate from textual data I believe.
Edit: In fact prefacing with "I'm not an Assange supporter but..." sounds to me like someone trying to give their argument in support of him/against the US/UK governments more weight, ie, even people who aren't the usual suspect fans of his are disturbed by what's going on.
People do this all the time on any subject, it's a weak rhetorical device. "I'm not one to support Javascript but", "I don't normally disagree with @pmachinery but".
We should just try to make our point without trying to artificially weigh it with rhetoric.
I have complex views of Assange.
1. I think the extradition hearings are bizarre and it’s hard to consider them a fair trial.
2. I support Assanges long term goal of western democracies being open and accountable, rather than being based on secrets and lies.
3. I don’t know whether Assange’s tactics are moving us towards or away from that goal.
It seems like he has taken an anti-American stance and acted intentionally to undermine the US, presumably because he sees the US as the most hypocritical geopolitical actor.
He may be accurate in his assessment, but the adversaries of the US who will exploit the power vacuum are Russia and China, who are either worse or at least as bad as the US when it comes to secrets and lies, and so it’s not at all obvious that his tactics support his goal. I’d like to hope that they ultimately do cause some kind of positive realignment, but that is not a foregone conclusion.
Forcing someone to betray their principles in perceived self defense and then acting surprised is akin to gaslighting. Again, it’s not clear that this is a helpful move, but maybe it is.
I think it’s reasonable to say he has drawn attention to insecurities of both the US and the UK, but they seem like predicable and well founded insecurities.
Calling Assange a journalist is like calling Rupert Murdoch a journalist.
Assange is not a journalist, nor is he a reporter. Bear with me - this is a ‘pro Assange’ point.
He is a publisher with an intelligence gathering network.
Recognizing this doesn’t mean it’s right that he should be prosecuted.
In fact it sheds light on something more sinister - actual journalists don’t report the things that Assange published, because their publishers don’t want them to.
Publishers in general are self-censoring in order to stay on good terms with governments and other powerful interests.
Organizations calling Assange a ‘journalist’, especially any mainstream publishers, are actually colluding to deflect attention from this fact, and co-opting support for Assange, when in fact they are collaborating with governments and are the very reason Wikileaks was necessary in the first place.
Reducing what’s going on to ‘Assange as martyr’, ‘look at this kangaroo court’, ‘This is about silencing journalists’, does nothing to advance Assange’s actual goal.
I think the comparison is not exactly right, Wikileaks is very far from being a media empire, and Assange is very far from using it as a tool in his own interest. In my opinion, calling Assange a journalist is like calling a news room editor a journalist, as in: he is one.
However I disagree with your reframing. News room editors answer to the publisher (I.e. whoever owns the publishing organization), and generally have been promoted from the ranks of journalists.
None of that is true about Assange. He was never a journalist and never did investigative reporting, or any of the other things a journalist normally does.
He did not answer to a publisher. He built and controlled the publishing platform, and therefore is a publisher.
He was a publisher who was willing not to self-censor.
If we incorrectly call Assange a journalist, and we say that he served the public good by ‘reporting’ what other journalists would not, then we are laying the blame for the lack of accountability in our society at the feet of journalists.
That’s just not accurate.
Assange has only been able to accomplish anything because he is a publisher. Journalists simply cannot do what he did, because they answer to publishers.
Assange is not a journalist. He is a publisher.
https://shadowproof.com/2020/09/16/pentagon-papers-ellsberg-...
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-...
They talk about Wikileaks, his publishing organization, working as a peer in cooperation with the NYT, the Guardian, and other publishers. They describe his priorities and concerns and the protocols he wanted to use.
All of these are consistent with Assange as the creator of Wikileaks standing as a publisher.
Also, that testimony looks very good for Assange.
I'm pretty sure I read in the articles covering the hearings that some journalist organizations were claiming he is one. Found a mention in day 8 of the hearings reporting (search for mentions of Chelsea Manning): https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-...
I’m not arguing that he’s not involved in editorial decisions.
I am arguing that it’s misleading to call him a journalist. That’s not why he matters.
People are calling him a journalist because they hope it will save his life. I hope it does too.
I just think that if we care about his overall goal, we should see him as a publisher - because that’s the work he has done that matters.
Forcing someone to betray their principles in perceived self defense and then acting surprised is akin to gaslighting
This does not make sense to me and seems to amount to blaming Assange for the hunt he was subjected to.
I think it’s reasonable to say he has drawn attention to insecurities of both the US and the UK, but they seem like predicable and well founded insecurities.
So the US and the UK are persons with their own feelings that we should respect ?
I’m not blaming Assange for what he’s being subjected to.
On the other hand I also don’t think he or anyone else would imagine that there wouldn’t be a response to a perceived threat.
I may agree with him that we should live in a society that lives up to its ideals.
However we both know it doesn’t, and national security fears over whistleblowers are not necessarily unfounded.
I’m not suggesting he’s to blame for an unfair trial. However it’s also clear that he knew his actions would be seen as anti-American, and indeed I presume he would stand by those actions and that assessment of America. So it shouldn’t be a surprise that he finds himself in this position. In many ways this confirms what he has been saying. The question is - is this choice of his going to move us in a positive direction?
I am quite unsure of that.
I agree that we need more words for the concept of gaslighting- there are lots of nuances around it.
As for ‘insecurities’ I do mean that as a psychological analogy, but I think it’s a good way to look at it.
I’m not arguing that we should respect the U.K. or the US as people who have feelings.
I’m saying that like a person with insecurities, there are actions which elicit a threat response from countries.
I’m also saying that, just like a person, these may or may not be reflective of reality. If they are, then a defensive response is appropriate, even if incongruent with our higher ideals for who the person or country aspires to be.
Everyone sucks here?
But it remains a fact that he chose to spill damaging information about one side and not the other, even though he had information on both. Unfortunately for him, the side he helped turns out to be just as eager for his head on a pike as the other would have been.
He hated Clinton since the diplomatic cable leak, and wanted to damage her, but never thought Trump would win.
I can't speak for anybody else, but I consider it a valid worry
Ok perhaps not FBI breaking down your door at 3am, but for sure "earn your place" on a list, in some three-letter-dept, and your name will stay there forever. And one day, on your way back from vacation to country XYZ that is not the favorite of the sitting (at the time) president you may be greeted by people in uniforms wanting to scan you laptop, phone, etc.
It has happened before, so yes it is a valid worry.
Are you crazy? Why WOULDN'T you be worried about that?
For me, Assange is
1) Asshole
2) Possibly mentally ill at this point
3) Someone who once greatly advanced journalism and whistleblowing. Even bad journalist deserves protections of a journalist.
4) A person who might have crossed the line from journalism and even his own principles. If he did entangle himself in more than just publishing information being journalist status should not protect him (like assisting or promoting hacking to Dem servers).
5) Political partisan hack supporting Trump.
6) He is also a person who needs to be treated fairly no matter what he did or didn't do.
If he was not perceived to be by some as #5 he would be all over CNN right now.
If you find fault with him for other reasons that is fine, but the core issue here seems to be one of of ‘do you believe that there is such a natural right?’, and not one of ‘do you believe Assange is a likable person?’.
If you’re fine with governments using extrajudicial systems to exact revenge on whistleblowers in distant lands then it really doesn’t matter what you think about his personal behavior.
If on the other hand you think there is such an inherent human value, it’s conversely difficult to justify his current treatment.
However, I think it's entirely defensible that he lost his asylum in Ecuador, because that's up to the good graces of Ecuador and they didn't owe him anything, and it's entirely defensible that he faced the threat of extradition to Sweden for a sexual assault trial because those charges were credible. (I don't know if they are true or not, but that's what a trial would be for, and they don't seem to have been so specious that a trial itself would be unjust.)
This makes it hard for me to summarize my opinion as either agreeing or disagreeing with his current treatment.
Given the same treatment now do you think Chris Cuomo, Rachael Maddow, or Don Lemmon would have done?
I'm not intimately familiar with those three particular journalists, but it's far from unheard of for American journalists to go to jail protecting their principles. And I'd point out that it's even more common for them to argue for their principles in court, which Assange is trying his hardest to avoid.
Now the point about I may have done same thing given the same actors against me - does not make it house arrest.
Or do you think that whistleblowing is so fundamental that it supersedes all normal laws?
Whistleblowing is in fact protected, by law, in many circumstances, at least in the US. That doesn't mean that you can stomp all over other laws, and plead whistleblowing. The other laws also still apply.
On the subject of the charges, since you brought it up:
How can the US reasonably charge him with espionage? Has Assange ever even been to the US?
If we can charge a foreign reporter with espionage for the mere publication of something we consider secret, and force their international extradition, how would we feel about a foreign government doing the same to one of our citizens?
For instance, if Australia were to coerce the UK to arrest and extradite the publisher of the New York Times for prosecution under their laws for printing a story they didn't like for some reason.
In this case they demand the extradition of Assange for supposedly having done some minor crime, but in the past the US have refused to extradite their people wanted for major crimes, like manslaughter, which were proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
For example, one of the cases that I am aware of happened some years ago at the US embassy from Bucharest, Romania.
Someone from the military personnel of the US embassy has driven a SUV while drunk and he hit a taxi cab killing the passenger. The American ran away from the accident place and in a few hours he was smuggled from the country by the embassy, so when the police came in the morning to arrest him he could no longer be found.
There was absolutely no doubt about his guilt, but nevertheless the US refused to extradite him and he was never punished for taking a human life.
There have been many such cases with US citizens in many countries, so whenever the US demands that other countries should extradite their people for supposedly breaking US laws, the US government shows extreme shamelessness, by asking others to do what the US will not do.
Unfortunately there are many servile foreign governments who accept this asymmetry in their relationship with the US.
I think that "reddit style" commenting brings out the extremes in people, everytime I actually talk to someone face-to-face they seem to be less extreme than what they appear to be on the internet.
One must also wonder why Assange spends so much time talking to folks like Sean Hannity, Dana Rohrbacher, and Charles C. Johnson.
https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/09/19/wherein-wikileaks-brag...
Since the article is about trial monitoring, it seems that your views about WikiLeaks may be the larger non sequitur.
"I am baffled to see that the majority of the comments here are at best showing no support for what Assange did ..."
Apparently yes.
Do I think they should be?
No, I do not.
Now, can you just take what I posted at face value instead of assuming a whole bunch of other opinions you think I hold?
Yes.
There is no process, other than the United States government's own procedures, that prevents the US from extraditing any of its citizens, journalists or otherwise, to other governments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
Probably won't apply to journalists, but there are absolutely limits to American reciprocity in these areas.
Care to show the example of disinformation disseminated by Assange?
For example, John Sloboda of Iraq Body Count testified both to the crucial role Wikileaks diplomatic cables played in corroborating many illegal civilian deaths in the Iraq War, and also the huge degree of care and effort Assange and Wikileaks put into carefully redacting identifying information and weighing the moral balance of information that was too important to be fully redacted.
If your comments on Russian disinformation are about the DNC leaked emails, then you’ve unfortunately got it backwards.
Assange and Wikileaks didn’t assist or engender Russian disinformation, rather the DNC members whose behavior was revealed by the emails did that. The DNC did that via their behavior. Assange reported it.
In short, when you see smart people saying silly things, sometimes it's not due to emergent organic causes.
[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/02/the-ridiculous-p...
Which is not a particularly helpful, or charitable statement.
This happens here. HN is compromised, trying to think a true sentiment exists here is false, you are seeing mostly the carefully curated posts to support us government propaganda.
Assange is not held in high esteem by a large number of political allies who know him well. It is obvious from the Laura Poitras documentary, the Andrew O'Hagan LRB article, and the Wikileaks Twitter feed, that he is not worth the deification he receives in much of the hacker crowd. He is perfectly capable of trashing his own reputation and alienating his own friends without the help of a shadowy conspiracy.
I have no issue with Wikileaks, and frankly, don't care whether or not they are being funded by Joe Bob, Putin, or the Antichrist.
Assange, however, is a somewhat unpleasant individual, and the allegations against him (the hacking conspiracy) have teeth.
It's rather telling that most of the posts in his defense in this thread believe that his means should not be criminal, because his ends justified them.
Yes, that appeals to a rather popular understanding of justice. But no, that's not how the law works. No, the law isn't fair.
What bothers me the most is that Assange only crime in the UK is that he had skip bail from a crime without evidence. Where is the European Court of Justice ? Human Rights ? It's all a political weapon now ?
I don’t know where you live, but at least around California it’s generally accepted that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction and the war justification was bush league lies.
Yes, but extradition works on the basis that if they committed a crime abroad and it would be a crime in the UK, extradition can typically go ahead. Even if they didn't commit the crime in the UK.
> Where is the European Court of Justice ? Human Rights ?
The European Court of Justice doesn't hear appeals on extradition. It is a competence reserved solely for Member States.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) might hear an appeal if a Convention right is engaged (e.g. the right not to be tortured) so it is possible that an appeal is lodged after this case if extradition is granted, but Assange first needs to appeal to the High Court and then the Supreme Court if that happens.
This is because all domestic remediation routes must be exhausted before the ECtHR will hear a case. In any event, the ECtHR cannot directly block an extradition: they can only order the State to pay damages.
The only ultimate court in the UK that can block any extradition is the Supreme Court.
Your condescending framing that suggests anyone who doesn't agree with your political analysis isn't sharp is a quintessential example of what is wrong with political discussion in today's era.
You didn't present any facts or arguments, you simply invoked a tired political virtue-signal to let everyone know where you stand on Assange while simultaneously expressing disdain for those who don't agree with you, all without addressing any specifics. Bravo.
The fact is, there has been at work in society an implicit assumption that given limited resources to delegate, those resources get delegated toward actions that communicate the most in terms of message to the greatest number of people be it positive or negative in nature.
This message to my sensibilities is unambiguously clear. Poke the dragon, get the fire. No semblance of law and order will really save you, because everything is always open to interpretation to get things done and the cost of mistakes having been made in the past are very easy to brush off for the institution, but life destroying for the victim.
Dig 2 graves before ye set off on your crusade, for ye journey as much to your own end as that of your enemy. Whether or not you believe personally that's a tenable arrangement matters not a lick until such time as you can marshal enough collective social/political capital to change it.
Even that though is no guarantee. "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."--Every imperiled government ever
The geopolitical system is as much an organism as we are it's cells. The task of a Statesman is to try to direct this behemoth without undue cost in human lives through wise and fruitful policy, diplomatic, and strategic decisions to keep the collective organism alive and in good standing amongst it's neighbors/rivals.
I cannot say I've ever seen good Statesmanship in my life. I hazard few left alive have, but I can only hope the low point we seem to have collectively hit is a local maxima, and keep on trucking.
I'm still hoping that Assange may surprise us with a sudden reversal as one of these beasts comes to it's senses and remembers the values it purportedly stands for, but I'm not holding my breath.
Is this what Assange is accused of doing?
1. Receiving a password hash from Manning
2. Telling Manning he'll try to crack it
3. Following up asking for more info about it (related usernames or something)
4. Never actually cracking it and no further action
Does anyone have any more specifics on what Assange actually did here to break the law? The indictment is pretty vague on this and it seems to be the central issue.
[1] https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1289641/downl... (page 9)
I understand that physical seats are limited and retransmission is free and in live in the other room, as far as I understood.
"American prosecutors claim he conspired with whistleblowers to obtain classified information"
Well...
It seems to be the main issue, many persons wants to follow this trial since it has worldwide impact.
(it still makes it sad that no solutions were found though)
Sunlight is good.
There is a general principle of the court publishes a fair, accurate and contemporaneous record except where this would create a substantial risk of prejudice. Here are the details https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/reportin...
These UK reporting restrictions are also why the BBC (and other major UK-based media) are very careful about how they report on criminal proceedings.
Looks like the difference is that there's no jury to be prejudiced, because trials are decided by the judges only.
I wonder though if the extradition request is going to be decided by the jury at some point, in this case in particular.
It should be pretty obvious why.
There is no objective public record of English trials.
Unsurprisingly if you request transcripts of a case in which someone was accused of raping a child, the witness statement from the child and associated examination by counsel may not be available to satisfy your "idle curiosity" whereas they might be available to the defence lawyer for the accused who is appealing the sentence based on something said in that part of the trial.
> “ Amnesty International had requested access to the court for a trial monitor to observe the hearings, but the court denied us a designated seat in court. Our monitor initially did get permission to access the technology to monitor remotely, but the morning the hearing started he received an email informing us that the Judge had revoked Amnesty International’s remote access.”
1) Make sure that visibility into the trial is as open as possible.
2) Make sure that the trial is as obscured as possible from the public and institutions that exist to hold the government to account.
Which are they doing? It is PAINFULLY obvious what they are doing is 2.
They could have made this trial very open. They opted not to. The question of whether the public had more or less access than Amnesty is a red herring of the highest order.
This isn't about a simple murder or stealing. This is at its root about how journalism holds the most powerful governments in the world to account for premeditated murder. Governments that have significant control over HOW the trial plays out.
If this were a russian trial doing the same thing we wouldn't even QUESTION that it was corrupt.
I think you missed a negation somewhere in that sentence.
"Amnesty International had requested access to the court for a trial monitor to observe the hearings, but the court denied us a designated seat in court. Our monitor initially did get permission to access the technology to monitor remotely, but the morning the hearing started he received an email informing us that the Judge had revoked Amnesty International’s remote access."
"The judge wrote back expressing her "regret" at her decision and saying: “I fully recognise that justice should be administered in public". Despite her regret and her recognition that scrutiny is a vital component of open justice, the judge did not change her mind."
There's the lack of openness 'you can't view the trial' and there's outright obeyance to fascism 'a political interference was made that compromised my former decision and I choose not to make that clear'.
Of course the judge could have made a legal error in acceding to the initial request from Amnesty International, but as a judge they would (and should) surely have given the reason for their turn around.
No, it wouldn't. Just because the U.K. gets it's knickers in a twist that the international community is hitting it with the same "Trust but Verify" stick as it does every other nation doesn't net them a free pass.
Yes. They're recognized independent observers. The reason why they should have a seat in the actual room is the same reason why all democratic countries allow independent observers to follow their elections from close-by: to confirm the fairness and validity of the process.
Or, to put it differently: "if they're doing nothing wrong, they have nothing to hide from Amnesty International"
I understand that physical seats are limited and retransmission is free and in live in the other room
That feed is very unreliable, as attested by many viewers from that room. That leaves ample opportunity for "doctoring" the feed.
https://shadowproof.com/2020/09/21/guide-to-journalists-assa...
Spineless and corrupt.
As an Australian, I'm not at all surprised that we've abandoned Assange. He's wanted by our government's government!
Just kidding.
That explains the circus.
He is widely criticized for his other views and accused of being an Assange sympathizer by parties who believe Assange may be guilty. I personally don’t see any evidence for bias impacting his reporting, but just wanted to raise the issue because there is usually a deluge of sniping comments attacking Murray’s coverage the minute it is linked.
This is probably the best available coverage of Assange’s hearing in the world at this point, which hopefully makes you feel pretty sick with anger towards The Guardian, The New York Times, etc., regardless of your views on the merit of Assange’s charges.
There is an excellent interview in german with the United Nations' Special Rapporteur on Torture about him that was very revealing: https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-spricht-ueber...
> Was heisst das: Die Behörden wiegelten ab?
> Darf ich von vorn beginnen? Ich spreche fliessend Schwedisch und konnte deshalb alle Originaldokumente lesen. Ich traute meinen Augen nicht: Nach Aussagen der betroffenen Frau selber hat es nie eine Vergewaltigung gegeben. Und nicht nur das: Die Aussage dieser Frau wurde im Nachhinein ohne ihre Mitwirkung von der Stockholmer Polizei umgeschrieben, um irgendwie einen Vergewaltigungsverdacht herbeibiegen zu können. Mir liegen die Dokumente alle vor, die Mails, die SMS.
> What does that mean: The authorities are weighing down?
> Can I start over? I speak Swedish fluently so I was able to read all the original documents. I couldn't believe my eyes: According to the woman concerned, there was never any rape. And not only that: The statement of this woman was retrospectively rewritten by the Stockholm police without her involvement in order to somehow turn up a suspicion of rape. I have all the documents in front of me, the emails, the SMS.
If someone purposefully hides salient facts from you in order to coerce sexual intercourse then it can be that consent was only acquired by deception and that under the law consent was not freely given. That seems a reasonable definition of rape.
A person seeking police advice may not know they were raped in that way. And prosecution despite that person's reluctance would seem right as it seems to protect the public from a menace (someone knowingly spreading HIV).
Those mightn't be the facts here, but save the last paragraph it fits with what you're saying and explains why a public prosecutor would seek a prosecution despite the alleged victim not considering themselves to have been raped.
If someone is familiar with the case and Swedish rape laws then I'd be interested in their input here?
I agreee, but is not telling someone that you do not (to your knowledge) have HIV "not revealing a fact"? You seem to be falling prey to the muddying of waters I mention in my original comments: Instead of discussing the fact that the US spied on its own citizens etc, or the fact that Assange is being held accountible in and by a country where he did not commit any crimes, we are discussing the optics of a constructed rape case, without either of us knowing the laws of the country.
Assange could have Tuberculosis too. So that's also rape, right? The flu? Also rape. He could be a triple rapist!
Just forget all that systematic government murdering, spying, and lying he revealed, we won't entertain facts from a possible triple rapist!
Rarely people with HIV have _chosen_ to spread it through intercourse, if someone purposefully chose to give you HIV would you say you had fully consented to that sexual act, given you were entirely ignorant to their infection and their choice?
How would you protect people from active malicious infection? Or, have you done reason that we shouldn't consider these things to be assault?
Of course not, it's a ridiculous allegation with no basis in fact.
A baseless allegation that would have rightly been completely ignored by police if it wasn't Assange.
I assume from what you're saying that Assange did not have (or have reason to believe he had) HIV at the time of the alleged rape? Which would of course rule out this love of reasoning in this case, but would not make my response to the OC incorrect.
Selective enforcement at its "finest", in my opinion.
> Julian Assange moves like a hunted man. In a noisy Ethiopian restaurant in London’s rundown Paddington district, he pitches his voice barely above a whisper to foil the Western intelligence agencies he fears.
> He demands that his dwindling number of loyalists use expensive encrypted cellphones and swaps his own the way other men change shirts. He checks into hotels under false names, dyes his hair, sleeps on sofas and floors, and uses cash instead of credit cards, often borrowed from friends.
The whole point was to paint him as a paranoid control freak, rather than someone who had completely legitimate fears of state surveillance. Does anyone seriously think that Assange was not under surveillance by multiple state intelligence agencies at that point?
Anyways, this is how they treated the person who provided them one of the biggest scoops in the paper's history. If you look at the NY Times page on the War Logs, they still feature the hit piece at the top: https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/interactive/worl...
Yes, the NY Times has expressed opposition to the prosecution of Assange, but they've hardly reported on his extradition case. They should have this case on the front page every day, given how critical it is to the future of journalism in the US.
Turns out that Melzer's only concrete accusation is based on a misreading of evidence at best; the one against the Swedish police, of how they supposedly tampered with (even fabricated) one of the testimonies. The evidence for that is inconclusive, Melzer was possibly confused with the format of the Freedom of Information documents released by the police, but in any case Melzer is making a big fuss out of nothing and downplaying rape with his other comments at the same time.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22209868
EDIT: also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_...
> One of the women interviewed by Melzer later sharply criticised him and demanded his resignation. She said that by defining how a "proper rape-victim" would have to act, Melzer was engaging in victim blaming and that his report was partially "untrue and defamatory".
Regarding the rape, this is what Wikipedia has to say about it:
> On 20 August 2010, two women, a 26-year-old living in Enköping and a 31-year-old living in Stockholm, reported to the Swedish police that Assange had engaged in unprotected sexual activity with them that violated the scope of their consent, also because one woman was asleep in one case.
In many places rape is defined as sex without consent, and force is not required. England is one such place. In some places consent is nullified by actions such as removing a condom without telling someone. Again, this is the case in England.
However, Assange is also accused of using force.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html
> As regards offence 1, AA said in her statement that she had offered the use of her apartment to Mr Assange from 11-14 August 2010 when she was away. She had returned on 13 August 2010 earlier than planned and then met him for the first time. They went out to dinner and returned to her apartment. As they drank tea, he started to fondle her leg which she welcomed. Everything happened fast. Mr Assange ripped off her clothes and at the same time broke her necklace. She tried to put her clothes on again, but Mr Assange had immediately removed them again. She had thought that she did not really want to continue, but it was too late to tell Mr Assange to stop as she had consented so far. Accordingly she let Mr Assange take off all her clothes. Thereafter they laid down on the bed naked with AA on her back and Mr Assange on top. Mr Assange wanted to insert his penis into her vagina, but she did not want him to do that as he was not using a condom. She therefore squeezed her legs together in order to avoid him penetrating her. She tried to reach several times for a condom which Mr Assange had stopped her from doing by holding her arms and bending her legs open and trying to penetrate her with his penis without a condom. Mr Assange must have known it was a condom AA was reaching for and he had held her arms to stop her. After a while Mr Assange had asked AA what she was doing and why she was squeezing her legs together; AA told him she wanted him to put on a condom before he entered her. Mr Assange let go of AA's arms and put on a condom which AA found for him. AA felt a strong sense of unexpressed resistance on Mr Assange' s part against using a condom.
> In relation to this and the other offences, Mr Emmerson QC put forward what he said would be a fair description of the conduct which, if adopted, would show that there was no dual criminality. In summary, his contention was that the alleged offending conduct had been taken out of context; in relation to offence 1 that context was consensual sexual activity (undressing and lying naked on top of AA)) with the joint expectation that sexual intercourse would take place, followed by sexual intercourse taking place consensually, once he had used a condom. The offending conduct alleged was no more than a brief period, which could readily be seen as a mere misunderstanding. During that brief period, AA did not object to the continued naked contact as the apparent precursor to intercourse; AA did not wish to proceed immediately for a reason not immediately obvious but shortly thereafter rectified. It was also of importance in relation to the mens rea, since for dual criminality, the facts alleged had to impel the conclusion that Mr Assange had no reasonable belief that AA was consenting to what had happened.
> It seems to us that the conduct described as offence 1 fairly and properly describes the conduct as set out in AA's statement in relation to what is complained of restricting her movement by violence. We accept that Mr Assange subsequently allowed AA to move so she could find a condom for him to use, but at the point in time to which the offence relates, we do not read anything in her statement to indicate consent to his restraining her. Indeed her statement indicates precisely the opposite at the point of time to which it relates. It of course might well be argued that his subsequent decision to let go of her might indicate a lack of coercion or consent to what followed, but at the point of time to which the offence relates, we consider the conduct of which he is charged to have been fairly and accurately described. As we have set out at paragraph 71.v) above, the matters alleged are sufficient, in our view, and to the extent relevant, to impel the inference of knowledge. The context does not change our view.
> It must therefore follow in respect of offence 1 that the challenge made fails, even if the extraneous material was taken into account.
Of course nobody should be interested when his human rights are ignored, because that inexcusable behavior is so much more damaging for society than governments murdering innocent civilians, illegally spying on everyone, and lying to their own people about their actions.
GG military industrial complex.
This is not about Assange's personal life or him being a journalist or a hack. It's about the freedom to publish relevant news obtained from a whistle-blower without fear of being arrested and tortured for years before being extradited to spend the rest of their life being tortured.
Some of the testimonies over the course of last week were exactly about this. How the US government didn't really try to prosecute US journalists for aiding sources to obtain classified material. See Craig Murray's[1] or Kevin Gosztola's reports on the examining of Pentagon Papers' publisher, Daniel Ellsberg.
[1] https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-...
[2] https://dissenter.substack.com/p/good-ellsberg-bad-assange-a...
So it would be a first that a publisher is under threat for releasing sensitive material. The witness testimonies (as reported in the above links and in the articles from previous days) seem to agree on this, or at least that was my impression.